4 School-based management: implications for the new roles of principals and teachers
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van der Westhuizen Graduate School o f Education
Potchefstroom University for CHE POTCHEFSTROOM
E-mail: dopm jm @ puknet puk ac.za doppc vd w @ puknet. pu k . ac. za
Abstract
School-based management: implications for the new roles of principals and teachers
Recent reform p o lic y in education rests on the im plem entation o f sch ool-based management. This p o lic y im plies new roles a n d respon sibilities f o r the prin cipal a n d teachers in the management o f schools. Consequently, this p a p e r explores sc h o o l-b a sed m anagem ent with reg a rd to the devolution o f authority, leadership styles, decentralization o f sch ool fun ctions a n d teacher participation.
1. Orientation
Educational reform and restructuring initiatives in most parts o f the world rest on the conviction that the participation o f teachers, learners and parents can enhance the achievement o f the desired transformation. On its own, participation is deemed to have substantial benefits for the school and its members. In this respect, participation is deemed to increase morale and productivity (Johnstone &
Germinario, 1985:91; Chapman, 1988:57), elicit acceptance o f and commitment to decisions (W eiss, 1992:3) and contribute to improved student achievement (Perry et al., 1994:605).
Such reform initiatives may be defined by different terms, however, with school- based management, shared decision-making, participatory decision-making, decentralization, empowerment, school-based decision-making and site-based management being the most popular terms (W alker & Roder, 1993:164). In the RSA the preferred term, as used in most educational policy documents, and which will be used in this article, is school-based management. Whichever term
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 73
is used, school-based management generally refers to a decentralized form o f management in the education system. The school becomes the locus for decision making and the participation o f parents, learners and teachers is evident.
School-based management is no longer an option o f which the merits can be debated. In most countries school-based management is mandated through legislation. In the RSA in particular, it has been enacted through the South African Schools Act (Republic o f South Africa, 1996). As acknowledged by many commentators (Wildy, 1997:2; Leithwood et al., 1997:2; M arsh & Le- Fever, 1997:1), school-based management casts principals, teachers, learners and parents into new roles and responsibilities.
Perceptions o f the roles o f principals and teachers in the implementation o f school-based management are often at variance with the Scriptural ontic principles o f the school as a societal relationship. The authority structure o f the school in particular is often ignored. Consequently, “the calling and office”
(Fowler, 1996:106) o f various school members comes under strain in the performance o f management duties. M oreover, the distinctive end towards which the school must work and thereby serve its Creator, viz., teaching-leaming, is often sacrificed on the altar o f democracy.
This article explores the new roles o f principals and teachers in school-based management from the viewpoint o f the Scriptural ontic principles o f the school and o f management with respect to authority, leadership and the extent of participation. To place the roles o f principals and teachers in perspective, the article will first consider how school-based management is conceptualized.
2. C on cep tu alizatio n of schoo l-based m a n a g e m e n t
The view taken in this article is that the participation o f teachers within the bounds o f school-based management occurs in an area with which they are unfamiliar, while it requires o f principals to share authority and leadership with teachers and other stakeholders. Thus, to understand how this arrangement impacts on the role o f principal and teachers, it is necessary to review what school-based management entails.
In the traditional bureaucratic system authority and decision-making are vested in the hands o f officials at a “central office” who ratify the decisions from school level (M eW alters, 1992:9). School-based management represents a departure from this type o f system. It attempts to move the decision-making process from the central office to the school. The devolution o f authority through decentralization is, therefore, the first dimension o f school-based management.
Hence the concept o f a “ self-managing school” is encapsulated in school-based management (Department o f Education, 1996a:29).
74
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van der Westhuizen The second dimension o f school-based management relates to the participation o f stakeholders. In the process o f delegating authority, all stakeholders concerned with the management o f a school (parents and teachers) take responsibility for the internal management o f a school (Department o f Education, 1996a:28). Often the internal functioning o f a school is divided into managing and teaching spheres with each sphere managed by different categories o f persons. Hence the popular saying that the role o f the principal is to manage while that o f the teachers is to teach.
Lately the terms “management” and “governance” have been used to differentiate the roles o f principals and other stakeholders (i.e. teachers) in school management. White Paper II (Department o f Education, 1996b: 15) defines governance as the sphere o f policy determination - a sphere in which democratic participation is essential; management is defined as the day-to-day organization of teaching and learning - a sphere for which principals and teachers are responsible. As admitted in White Paper II (Department o f Education, 1996b) the duties o f governance and management overlap and, it may be added, can hardly be differentiated.
In Article 16(1 and 3) the South African Schools Act (Republic o f South Africa, 1996) determines that the professional management o f a school must be undertaken by the principal and the head o f an Education Department, while governance is vested in the Governing Body (consisting o f parents, teachers and learners).
The above-mentioned guidelines create the impression that the aspect of professional management o f the school falls outside the scope o f teachers.
Oosthuizen (1994:128) expresses the opinion that certain duties exercised by the principal require a high degree o f managerial responsibility and authority and can, therefore, not be delegated. The sphere o f teachers’ management duties is restricted to pupils’ activities with regard to the social, academic and physical aspects o f school life (Prinsloo & Van Rooyen, 1997:356).
While it is accepted that parents’ and learners’ participation may be limited to governance only, the same cannot be said about teachers. Teachers should be involved in the governance and professional management o f a school, as suggested in White Paper II (Department o f Education, 1996a:26) because they, like principals, daily grapple with problems requiring immediate managerial response. The third dimension o f school-based management, therefore, concerns the participation o f teachers in school management, together with the principal and the senior management team.
The practice o f teachers participating in school management is not totally new.
The recognition o f this practice pays tribute to all hardworking teachers who,
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 75
over the years, have sacrificed their time to assist principals with managerial duties. Thus, Walker and Roder (1993:160) are right in defining school-based management as “ a management system where persons not historically involved in the decision-making process are allowed to participate in the management o f their school” .
Having briefly mapped what school-based management entails, the next question to answer is: W hat are the respective roles o f principals and teachers with regard to authority, leadership and the extent o f participation in school management?
The ensuing paragraphs attempt to provide an answer to this question.
3. Authority in schoo l-based m a n a g e m e n t
Authority serves as the basis for getting things done in a school as it equips its bearer with legitimate power and influence. Both principals and teachers, as office bearers under God, are endowed with authority; each exercises this God- given authority, however, in accordance with his/her calling within the communal institution. Consequently, the authority o f principals and that o f teachers will be discussed separately for the sake o f indicating their respective roles.
3.1 Authority of principals
Van der Westhuizen and M entz (1996:27) argue that a school, both as a societal relationship and as an organisation, exhibits a hierarchical authority structure. At the head o f this structure is the principal. Principals derive their authority from man’s creational mandate o f regulating societal structures and thus exercising granted authority from God who is sovereign m aster o f the entire creation (Van der W esthuizen, 1997a:12).
Principals positivize their authority by means o f rules and regulations which are applicable to the whole school, so as to regulate the mode o f living together within the sphere o f the school (Van der W esthuizen & M entz, 1996:25). Since it is God who vests man (i.e. principals) with authority, man must execute his authority in a responsible way, thus guiding and taking care o f those who are subordinate to his authority. The exercising o f authority implies influencing the behaviour o f individuals in the direction o f achieving organizational goals.
The above-mentioned guidelines, however, do not imply that principals must use their authority to oppress opinions o f other school members. The creational mandate requires that principals should exercise authority in a responsible way in order to promote the societal structure. In school-based management principals are not expected to give detailed instructions which teachers must follow without question. Principals should exercise their authority with due regard for the
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van der Westhuizen opinions o f teachers and should encourage teachers to take the initiative, make decisions and exercise their dominion over creation (Fowler, 1996:101).
It seems as if recent demands for participation in school management have often been based on a misinterpretation o f authority as meaning authoritarianism. It has not been uncommon for people to speak o f reducing the enormous power and influence concentrated in the position o f principalship, or to suggest the flattening o f the school’s hierarchical structure, or to render principals superfluous (Walker
& Roder, 1993:166). Despite efforts to achieve the foregoing, the hierarchical structure remains the most powerful tool for employing large numbers o f people, yet retaining unambiguous accountability (Jaques, 1991:57). The authority o f the principal is, therefore, immutable because it is the ontic given o f the school as a communal institution.
3.2 Authority of teachers
God, as bearer o f final and absolute authority, has endowed teachers with authority, and similarly principals. The teachers’ authority, however, is not the same as that o f principals. According to Van der Westhuizen and M entz (1996:
27), authority in the sphere o f the school is clearly demarcated. Thus, principals have overall management authority while teachers exercise authority in the classroom. Teachers’ authority enables them to create an orderly environment in their classrooms so as to allow effective teaching and learning to take place.
The authority o f teachers is limited and circumscribed by their God-given calling as teachers in the school. This idea is in harmony with the Scriptural teaching o f man as office-bearer under the authority God. The authority o f teachers is bound to their educative office for leading children in their exploration o f creation (Fowler, 1996:104). Teachers regulate classroom affairs by applying rules to govern the behaviour o f children under their care. Teachers should respect the children they teach and value their opinions, even though such opinions may vary from theirs. It may be said then that teachers’ authority does not imply to shape the whole character o f the school.
Complexities o f school management and the utilization o f participative management, however, necessitate the delegation o f authority from higher to lower levels, for example, to Heads o f Department and teachers. Thus, teachers are at times placed in positions o f authority with regard to limited areas o f school functioning, e.g. sports. In such cases, teachers act in a position o f authority vis- á-vis their colleagues and should be accorded the same respect as though they occupy formal positions.
Some teachers, under the new dispensation, are elected to serve in policy-making bodies such as the Governing Body. Within the limits o f their elected positions
Koers 63(1 & 2} 1998:73-87 77
teachers may exert influence on school-related policies. This is the essence o f their participation in school management.
The sharing o f authority in school-based management does not imply that principals abdicate their authority - thereby forsaking their God-given mandate - but that they delegate authority to others in the school to enable them to perform delegated duties. Since the authority o f teachers also emanates from God, the role o f teachers is to support, not to replace the principal and to uphold, not undermine, the principal’s authority so that effective educative teaching can take place. In this way, teachers will be using their positions in decision-making bodies in the school to serve their God-given office o f educative teaching - thereby also serving God.
4. Leadership in schoo l-based m a n a g e m e n t
The position o f principalship renders both authority and leadership to the incumbent. To manage a school effectively, principals need to be both managers and leaders. Merely executing the tasks o f planning and organizing does not transform a manager into a leader. Van der W esthuizen (1997c: 187) defines leadership as the ability o f a person “to convince, inspire, bind and direct followers to realise common ideals” .
The culture o f a democratic order displayed in school-based management requires principals to exercise a leadership style which promotes participation o f stakeholders. Van der W esthuizen (I997a:28) states that, since the Fall, m an’s authority tends towards the extremes o f authoritarian and laissez fa ir e types o f leadership. N either type o f leadership is envisaged in school-based management.
The collaborative setting o f school-based management calls upon principals and teachers to exercise leadership in various roles in a school, namely, in the field o f visionary and moral leadership, transformational leadership and in respect of being developer and mentor. The above roles will be explained in the ensuing discussion.
4.1 Visionary leadership
A school’s independence o f external controls requires it to set its own mission, goals, policies, strategic plans, and evaluation strategies. As visionary leaders, principals provide inspiration and purpose to the school’s endeavours by focusing the attention o f teachers, learners and parents on the mission and goals o f the school (Laws et al., 1992:52).
Principals should rally people around a set o f ideals which represent the shared expectations, beliefs and values o f the school and utilize these ideals or mission to guide and give direction to educational activities. Christian principals will also
M.J. M osoge & PC. van d er Westhuizen have an overriding vision to find renewed conformity to the structural ordinance o f the school in Christ (Wolters, 1993:73).
By developing a strong school ethos based on Scriptural principles, principals will be able to encourage and support members to work hard, to be committed and to be fully involved in achieving the central purpose o f the school, viz., educative teaching. The vision o f Christian principals should be to lead their subordinates to honour and glorify God (Theron & Van der Westhuizen,
1992:134).
While visioning and the formulation o f the school’s mission fall within the purview o f principals and the senior management teams (Kroon, 1990:172), school-based management affords teachers an opportunity to participate in this exercise. Their role consists o f developing and interpreting the original vision o f the senior management. Where such a vision is not consistent with the Scriptural mission o f the school, Christian teachers should not hesitate to exercise their reformational task o f re-directing it towards God.
Once agreement concerning the school’s mission has been reached in the Governing Body, teachers should implement it in their classrooms as it befits their specific office o f educative teaching. Instead o f merely articulating the school’s vision to the learners, teachers should act as positive role models because children learn more easily by example than by words. Teachers should also use every available opportunity during parents’ evenings to inform parents about the school’s vision.
4.2 Moral leadership
Moral leadership provides an anchor for transformational leadership. Attempts of principals may easily lose direction if not grounded on principle. Matczynski and Benz (1997:2) offer the following explanation o f moral leadership: “Moral leadership connotes the use o f values and value judgements in the selection, extension and day-to-day practices o f educational leaders. A moral leader is consistently cognizant o f the central purpose o f schooling.”
In managing a school, principals should always strive to satisfy the expectations o f the community with regard to the way in which a school ought to be managed (Van der W esthuizen, 1997b:88). However, principals should also identify values which have a basis in Scripture and shape their management o f the school in accordance with these values.
Principals would do well to advise the Governing Body to consider the appointment o f teachers, not only on the basis o f teaching expertise, but also on the basis o f their values. It is the principals’ duty to guide teachers in upholding the professional code o f conduct and to deal with deviations promptly, yet fairly.
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 79
It is obligatory for Christian teachers to exercise their moral leadership in the community by correcting faulty values through increasingly affirming G od’s law on the school as a societal relationship (Van der Westhuizen, 1997b: 131). This goal can be achieved when teachers act as leaders in the community, for example, in the capacity o f catechists, elders, deacons or Sunday school teachers, or as chairpersons or secretaries in a variety o f community-based organizations (Loots, 1992:33).
The conduct o f teachers should always be above reproach, especially in carrying out duties allocated to them in the Governing Body and in the management o f a school. Teachers should feel morally obliged to perform management duties faithfully and not to regard such duties as an unnecessary burden.
4.3 Transformational leadership
The onticity o f transformational leadership is embedded in G od’s command for man to fill the earth and subdue it and to cultivate the earth from which he was taken. M an was thus given authority to work with creation, fashion it, shape it and transform it (Fowler, 1996:88-89). Restructuring and change are therefore part o f the mandate o f principals and teachers to transform the reality o f which the school forms part. Fowler (1996:89) is o f the opinion that if man left creation as it was given to him, this action would amount to disobedience to God.
In this context principals and teachers are called upon to balance transactional leadership with transformational leadership. Transactional leadership involves the discharge o f basic managerial functions which are necessary for the functioning o f the organization. Van der Walt (1996:22) aptly summarizes transactional contracts as “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” . For the Christian leader transactional leadership is not enough. In carrying out his/her cultural mandate, the Christian leader is constantly looking for ways o f cultivating and improving creation.
Although no agreement exists on what transformational leadership entails (Leithwood et al., 1997:4), it could be said that it entails anticipating and responding to the demands o f the environment. According to Bennis (1984:67), transformative pow er is “the capacity to take an organisation to a place where it has never been before” . This means that principals should change the mind-set o f people, their attitudes, values, and ways o f doing things. To achieve this, principals must steadfastly pursue the purposes for which the school has been established. They should give advice to school members, solicit advice from experts outside the school, utilize networking with other institutions, and form partnerships with industry and other educationally interested structures (Department o f Education, 1996a:70).
80
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van d er Westhuizen Teacher leaders provide a key towards the transformation o f the school system.
They should act as facilitators o f change, bring about innovative teaching and generally support measures aimed at improving the teaching-learning situation.
Indeed, Christian teachers’ greatest role at policy-making level lies in the continual development o f the school curriculum in the light o f Scripture.
Teachers should also encourage their colleagues to improve themselves by in
service training courses enabling them to participate in an informed way in the drawing up o f new curricula.
4.4 Leadership by being a developer and mentor
As indicated previously, the hallmark o f school-based management is the empowerment o f school members to make decisions about how a school should operate. The Department o f Education (1996a:31) asserts that schools should not only serve as learning environments for learners, but also for teachers and parents - a place for teachers, principals, parents and learners to live and grow.
The principal should actively seek to develop his staff by creating opportunities for them to grow, to learn from each other and to learn from their mistakes. Short (1994:490) is o f the opinion that as people grow, they learn to judge their own abilities better, discover their own interests and develop their basic potential. The leadership o f principals in school-based management implies that they further act as mentors to enable teachers to develop their leadership potential.
Teachers’ leadership is not confined to school-based management; it can also be practised in traditional management. Besides the formal positions, such as Head o f Department, teachers also act as informal leaders in a school - for example, as project leaders, sharing their expertise with colleagues, serving in ad-hoc committees and in the myriads o f committees created in schools to serve specific purposes unique to a particular school.
As in other countries (Leithwood et al., 1997:3), teachers in the RSA also serve as members o f the Governing Body (Republic o f South Africa, 1996:16).
Principals should recognize the fact that teachers also exercise leadership in the context o f the school as a whole and not only in relation to their teaching duties.
Such teacher leaders need the support and encouragement o f the principal to enable them to perform their duties effectively (Short, 1994:495).
In school-based management teachers serve as developers and mentors o f their colleagues. The delegation o f authority encourages teachers to plan together, share ideas and seek help from others. It also implies that teacher leadership should be accepted by others as a matter o f course and not be resisted on the grounds that the teacher leader does not occupy a formal position o f authority.
School-based management effectively legalizes the erstwhile informal leadership
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 81
exercised by teachers. Leithwood et al. (1997:3) mention that teacher leaders perform a variety o f functions, such as stimulating the professional growth o f others, inducting new teachers, and positively influencing their colleagues to implement change.
5. The extent a n d level of participation in school-based m a n a g e m e n t
The roles o f principals and teachers in a participatory setting should be evaluated on the basis o f the ontic laws with regard to their respective offices. Neither office should suffer in school-based management. Legislative mandates and the establishment o f democratic school governance structures do not guarantee that principals and teachers will participate effectively. Thus it is important to demarcate the extent and level o f their participation in school management.
5.1 Extent of participation
The extent o f participation refers to the choice o f individuals who should be involved and the range o f their participation in an issue, action or task at hand.
Obviously not all individuals in a school are interested in participating in all activities o f management, nor are they all equipped with the necessary knowledge and expertise to participate effectively.
In the era o f democratization an erroneous idea may arise that principals should just be ex officio members with marginal participation in school governance. The South African Schools Act (Republic o f South Africa, 1996:18) grants principals full participative powers in both school governance and especially in the professional management o f a school. This governing principle is in line with the authority and leadership position o f principals, vis-a-vis the school as a societal relationship and an organization.
Principals should, therefore, take responsibility and accountability for the participation o f other stakeholders in school management. They should give guidance particularly to teachers, to elect members who have the motivation, interest, expertise and knowledge so that their participation can be effective.
Principals should ensure the success o f participation by disseminating information, facilitating negotiation, liaising with outside bodies, monitoring the implementation o f resolutions and mediating conflicts (Van der Westhuizen,
1997b:94-95).
The possibility exists that entire staffs o f schools do not have a grounding in participation because o f the fairly recent idea o f school-based management.
Since teachers are, in this respect, involved in an unfamiliar area, it is likely that they are not acquainted with what school management entails. Schools should
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van de r Westhuizen adopt a multiple-strategy approach in training and equipping teachers for their new roles. Principals should assist, support and create opportunities for teachers to receive relevant training and must themselves also undergo training.
Events in some schools o f the ex Department o f Education and Training showed that teachers erroneously expected to be involved in all aspects o f management and in all issues surfacing from time to time. This idea may prove to be impossible, illogical and dysfunctional (Hoy & Tarter, 1993:14) and at variance with the ontic mandate o f their office o f educative teaching.
Consequently, participation o f teachers in school management should be carefully implemented lest the teachers’ ontic office suffers in the process. It will not serve a positive purpose should teachers be so involved in school management that they neglect their teaching responsibility. They should be prepared to sacrifice their time and attend meetings after school and during weekends. The right o f teachers to participate and even demand participation makes it unacceptable that they should opt out o f committees as they wish or attend meetings whenever they feel like it.
The constituency represented by teachers should understand that decisions reached with the participation o f their members are binding. M oreover, the representatives are not merely the carriers o f the teachers’ desires, but are also authorized, as leaders, to take decisions on behalf o f their constituency in the interests o f educative teaching. The elected teachers should understand their role as representatives o f their constituency. They should regularly give feedback to their constituency with an explanation why certain decisions were taken in order to obtain fresh mandates from the constituency.
Attendance o f a meeting does not connote participation. Participation may range from very little participation to extensive participation (Hoy & Tarter, 1993:7).
Teachers should strive for maximum participation in order to ensure an informed generation who is ready to improve the quality o f decisions. Participation, however, does not imply that people should discuss something endlessly, having the wrong impression that everyone must have a say. The discussion should focus on the objectives o f the meeting or the issues at stake.
5.2 Level of participation
School-based management involves the issue o f the devolution o f authority and responsibility from the central office to the school site. The level o f participation refers to the amount o f decision-making accorded to the school. This means drawing a line between decisions accorded to the school and those executed by the central Education Department, and expressing without ambiguity, their respective competencies and functions (Prinsloo, s.a.:67). This action becomes
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 83
more significant in the light o f the commitment by the Ministry o f Education in the “new ” South Africa to limit State involvement required for legal accountability to the minimum (Department o f Education, 1996b: 70).
Drawing the line between the central education office and the school is a difficult and sensitive issue (Torres, 1992:14) because this line is “wiggly and gray” as Lebowitz (1992:12) puts it. The Department o f Education has opted for an incremental model by which each school is given a basic set o f responsibilities.
The school can then negotiate for additional powers as it gains experience, capacity and confidence (Department o f Education, 1996a: 17).
Principals should note that the success o f self-management o f schools depends on honest retrospection by school members concerning what they are capable o f doing. Due to resistance to change, it is probable that some o f the teachers will not be ready to accept participation, preferring to be directed and controlled;
others might prefer to remain on the sideline while issuing scathing criticism against principals and those who accept change.
Principals should apply all possible measures to remove this resistance to change.
They should assume the role o f change agents. With their wealth o f experience, principals are in a good position to know educational legislation and rules. This knowledge should be used to guide teachers on the parameters o f their participation.
The school, being part o f a larger system, should undertake its own needs assessment, develop its own mission and set its own goals within the parameters set by the Education Department. Teachers need to set own goals concerning their classrooms and the school-specific areas in which they have been allocated leadership positions. A vital role can also be played by teachers in identifying their own training needs with the assistance o f the principal and professional facilitators.
6. Conclusion
School-based management is embedded within the context o f an authority structure for the school. The main authority-bearer in charge o f the school in its totality is the principal, while teachers are authority-bearers with respect to their classrooms. Teachers also exercise delegated authority in selected areas of management covering all aspects o f school management. This implies that teachers, like principals, should exercise their authority and leadership in a responsible way to provide educative teaching to learners. In this way, school- based management takes into account the authority structure, thereby complying with the ontic given o f the school as a societal relationship and as an organization.
Koers 63(1 & 2} 1998:73-87
M.J. M osoge & PC . van d er Westhuizen The success o f leadership in school-based management hinges on the sharing o f and respect for prevailing values in the community. Christian principals and teachers should be sensitive to these community values and always model values which uphold G od’s laws. Such leadership is in line with Scriptural leadership.
The participation o f principals and teachers in school management should be based on their respective offices and calling within the societal structure. School- based management affirms the right o f principals to be principals and teachers to be teachers. Thus, each party is afforded sufficient room to contribute towards the development o f a school. As such, the principle o f the central function o f the school as a God-given structure is respected.
School-based management is not a passing fancy nor a cosmetic change but an enduring phenomenon which should continuously be realigned with G od’s ordinances so that each school may responsibly renew its management and its members. To produce the undoubted benefits offered by school-based manage
ment will, however, take time, patience, grit and persistence.
Bibliography
B E N N IS, W . 1984. Transform ative pow er and leadership. (In Sergiovanni, T.J. & Corbally, J.E. eds L eadership and organizational culture: new perspectives on adm inistrative theory a n d practice. Chicago : Illinois P ress p 64-71.)
C H A PM A N . J.D. 1988. D ecentralization, devolution and th e teacher: participation by teachers in the decision making o f schools. The Journal o f Educational Administration, 2 6 (l):3 7 -3 9 .
D E PA R T M E N T OF ED U C A TIO N . 1996a Changing m anagem ent to m anage change in education: report o f the task team on education m anagem ent developm ent. South Africa : D epartm ent o f Education.
D E PA R TM EN T O F ED U C A TIO N . 1996b. Education W hite paper 2: T he organisation, governance and funding o f schools. Pretoria : G overnm ent Printer.
FO W LER , S. 1996. Christian educational distinctives. P otchefstroom : Centre for Faith and Scholarship.
H O Y , W .K. & T A R T ER , C.J. 1993. A norm ative theory o f participative decision making in schools Journal o f Educational Administration, 3 1(3):4-19.
JA Q U ES, E 1991. A dissenting view: in praise o f hierarchy. (In H arvard Business Review, Participative m anagement. B oston : H arvard College, p. 57-63.)
JO H N STO N E , G .S. & G ER M IN A R IO , V. 1985. Relationship betw een teacher decisional status and loyalty. Journal o f Educational Administration, 23(1):91-105.
K RO O N , J. 1990. B estuur en bestuurder. (In K roon, J. red. A lgem ene bestuur. P re to ria : Haum. p. 3-24.)
LAW S, K , SM ITH , D. & SIN CLA IR, K 1992. L eadership style, skills and technology. (In Turner, C., H atton, M ., Laws, K , Sinclair, K. and Smith, D. T he school m anager Sydney : Allen & Unwin, p. 44-89.)
LEBO W ITZ, A.J. 1992, S taff buys in through shared decision making. The School Administrator, 49(1): 12-13.
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 85
L EITH W O O D , K , JA N TZ I, D , RY A N , S & STE IN B A C H , R. 1997. D istributed leadership in secondary schools (Paper presented at th e Annual M eeting o f the American E ducational R esearch A ssociation, Chicago, M arch 1997 )
LO O TS, Z.B. 1992. D ie onderw ys as professie. (In Van der W esthuizen, P C , L oots, Z B , M entz, P.J., O osthuizen, I.J. & Theron, A .M .C Die beginneronderw yser: ’n bestuur- m atig-juridiese p ersp ek tief D urban : B utterw orths. p. 11-34.)
M A RSH , D D & L eFEV E R , K. 1997. Educational leadership in policy context: w hat happens w hen student perform ance standards are clear? (Paper presented at the Annual M eeting o f the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, M arch 1997.) M A TC Z Y N SK I, T J & B E N Z , C .R 1997. A lternative principal preparation program : an
experim ental approach (Paper presented at the Annual M eeting o f the American Educational R esearch A ssociation, Chicago, M arch 1997 )
M cW A LT ER S, P 1992. H anding accountability and authority to schools The School Administrator, 49(1) 9-10.
O O S T H U IZ E N , I.J. 1994. Personnel m anagem ent (In O osthuizen, I.J. ed A spects o f educational law for educational m anagem ent. Pretoria . V an Schaik p 1 1 9 -1 3 4 ) PER R Y , C M ., B R O W N , D W & M cIN T IR E, W .G. 1994 T eacher respond to the shared
decision m aking opportunity. Education, 4 ( 1 14):605-608.
PR IN SLO O , N P s.a. Besluitnem ing in onderw ysbestuur. Pretoria : U niversiteit van Pretoria.
PR IN SLO O , N .P. & V A N R O O Y EN , J W. 1997. T he m anagem ent o f pupil activities (In Van d er W esthuizen, P C. ed. Effective educational m anagem ent P reto ria : Kagiso p. 347-368.)
R E PU B L IC O F S O U T H A FRICA. 1996 S outh African Schools Act. Vol 377. P retoria : G overnm ent Printer.
SH O RT, P.M . 1994. Defining teacher em pow erm ent. Education, 4 ( 1 14):493-502.
T H E R O N A M C. & V A N D E R W E STH U IZE N , P C. 1992. Die onderw yser en sy bestuurs- w erk. (In V an d er W esthuizen, P C ., L oots, Z B , M entz, P J., O osthuizen, I.J. &
T heron, A .M .C. D ie beginneronderw yser: ’n bestuurm atig-juridiese perspektief.
D urban : B utterw orths. p 11-34.)
T O R R E S, H. 1992 W restling with w hat to include in SBM. The School Administrator, 49(1): 14
V AN D E R W A LT, J.L. 1996. T he psychological contract as enabling instrum ent in the m anagem ent o f a Faculty o f E ducation P otchefstroom : PU vir CHO.
V AN D E R W E S T H U IZ E N , P C. & M E N T Z, P J 1996 An ontological perspective on the school as an organisation. (In Van der W esthuizen, P C e d Schools as organisations.
P retoria : V an Schaik. p. 22-74 )
V A N D E R W E S T H U IZ E N , P C . 1997a. Perspectives on educational m anagem ent and explanation o f term s. (In Van d er W esthuizen, P C ed Effective educational managem ent. P re to ria : Kagiso. p 11-61.)
V A N D E R W E S T H U IZ E N , P C. 1997b. The developm ent o f scientific m anagem ent thought and som e developm ents in the field o f educational m anagem ent (In Van der W esthuizen, P C. ed. Effective educational m anagem ent P reto ria : Kagiso. p 63-161.) V A N D E R W E STH U IZE N . P C 1997c. E ducational m anagem ent tasks (In Van der
W esthuizen, P C . ed Effective educational m anagem ent Pretoria : K agiso p 135
235.)
W A L K E R P.A. & R O D ER , L. 1993 R eflections on the practical and legal im plications o f school-based m anagem ent and teacher em pow erm ent Journal o f Law and Education, 22(2): 159-175.
M.J. M osoge & P.C. van d e r Westhuizen
W EISS, C.H. 1992. Shared decision m aking about w hat? (P ap er presented at the Annual M eeting o f th e American Educational Research A ssociation, San Francisco, April 21, 1992.)
W ILD Y , H. 1997. R estructuring and principal’s power: neither freedom from nor freedom to. (Paper presented at the Annual M eeting o f the American Educational Association, C hicago, M arch 1997.)
W O LTERS, A.M. 1993. C reation regained: biblical basics for a Reform ational worldview.
Grand R apids : Eerdm ans.
Koers 63(1 & 2) 1998:73-87 87
